IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v17y2022i6p1392-1421_10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hypothesized drivers of the bias blind spot—cognitive sophistication, introspection bias, and conversational processes

Author

Listed:
  • Mandel, David R.
  • Collins, Robert N.
  • Walker, Alexander C.
  • Fugelsang, Jonathan A.
  • Risko, Evan F.

Abstract

Individuals often assess themselves as being less susceptible to common biases compared to others. This bias blind spot (BBS) is thought to represent a metacognitive error. In this research, we tested three explanations for the effect: The cognitive sophistication hypothesis posits that individuals who display the BBS more strongly are actually less biased than others. The introspection bias hypothesis posits that the BBS occurs because people rely on introspection more when assessing themselves compared to others. The conversational processes hypothesis posits that the effect is largely a consequence of the pragmatic aspects of the experimental situation rather than true metacognitive error. In two experiments (N = 1057) examining 18 social/motivational and cognitive biases, there was strong evidence of the BBS. Among the three hypotheses examined, the conversational processes hypothesis attracted the greatest support, thus raising questions about the extent to which the BBS is a metacognitive effect.

Suggested Citation

  • Mandel, David R. & Collins, Robert N. & Walker, Alexander C. & Fugelsang, Jonathan A. & Risko, Evan F., 2022. "Hypothesized drivers of the bias blind spot—cognitive sophistication, introspection bias, and conversational processes," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(6), pages 1392-1421, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:6:p:1392-1421_10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500009475/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:6:p:1392-1421_10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.